[Advaita-l] Re: Vivekachudamani vs Bhashyas

[bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com]

As for the notion of nirvikalpa samAdhi itself, see gItAbhAshya 2.53 (in
the
context of sthitaprajna), where Sankara says that samAdhi is the Atman and
that it is vikalpa-varjitA. Note that the gItA verse itself only uses the
word acalA, i.e. still/unmoving. It is the bhAshyakAra who says that this
samAdhi is vikalpa-varjitA, i.e. devoid of mental constructions, i.e.
nirvikalpA.

>  praNAm Sri Vidya prabhuji
>  Hare Krishna

>  I've checked the shankara bhAShya on this verse prabhuji.  It will be
interesting to note that shankara talks about samAdhi as you said
vikalpa-varjitA.  It is agreed that gitA talks about acalatva of samAdhi
but shankara makes it clear that *acalA tatrApi vikalpa varjitA ityE tat*
after talking about sAdhya & sAdhana (shruti vipratipannA anEka sAdhya
sAdhana saMbhanDha prakASana shrutibhiH  etc.)  Here samAdhi does not mean
achala nirvikalpa samAdhi as we find in patanjalis astAnga yoga prabhuji,
here samAdhi is the implicit meaning of Atma jnAna, that is the reason why
arjuna asks the next question sthitha pragnasya kA bhAssh, kim AsIta, kim
vrajEta etc.  if bhagavan himself meant ashtANga yoga's achala samAdhi,
arjuna's question & bhagavan's subsequent answers does not make any sense
prabhuji.  Kindly clarify.

Yes, there are some differences between upanishad commentaries and
brahmasUtra commentary. If one were to be rigorous in discussing authorship
issues, shouldn't one also ask whether the same author wrote all the
commentaries? There is no prima facie reason why only prakaraNa texts
should
be subjected to this kind of analysis. No post-Sankaran author has quoted
praSnopanishad or kaThopanishad commentary, as far as I am aware. Indeed,
before analyzing prakaraNa texts, one should first examine all the
prasthAna
trayI commentaries (and also upadeSasAhasrI) in order to get the widest
possible idea of the range of Sankara's thought and writing style. Instead,
almost all arguments of authorship to date have focused on brahmasUtra
commentary alone. That is something that needs to be corrected before
making
judgements about the prakaraNa texts.

>  prabhuji, as we know, right from time immemorial traditionalists
comparitively giving great importance on shankara's sUtra bhashya.
Moreover, there is absolutely no second opinion about the authorship of
sUtra bhAshya by shankara. If we doubt the authorship of BSB then it will
take away the main root of shankara's adv. siddhanta.   But where as in
shruti bhAshyas still some complications are there in determining the
authorship.  For example, there are two types of bhashyas  in kenOpanishad
(pada & vAkya bhAshya), scholars say that commentaries on shw. Up. &
nrusimha tApaNi upanishads not listed in dashopanishad & its purports are
not in line with shankara's major dashopanishad bhashyas.  If we see the
immediate post shankara period, the works in adv. basically framed from
commentaries & sub-commentaries on sUtra bhAshya right from the time of
padmapAda's pancha padika's vivarana  prasthana.  It is firm conviction in
adv. tradition  & relying heavily on the BSB for understanding &
establishing adv.  since this is logical work to do samanvaya in shruti &
smruti prasthana.

>  Considering all the points above, we can treat the BSB of shankara as a
yard stick in determining other works which are ascribed to him.  I've the
text of US prabhuji.  Kindly give me some time to discuss this in detail.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!
your humble servant
bhaskar